Here's some basic reading on the subject.Would like to get more details but the article is behind a paywall.
This seems a bit suspect right now.
Is the suggestion that buying out a company of that magnitude should be illegal because it stifles competition?
Sony doesn't swoop in and blank check an entire publisher, which Microsoft has now done two times.
Bungie was a shock, but it's still just a developer in the end. They typically fold in studios who have primarily been on PlayStation anyway, which is partly why this one was a surprise.
But Microsoft changed the game entirely with the Activision/Blizzard deal. They've long had the financial power to buy their way into whatever.
I think Square-Enix is the likely purchase, based on prior history and current console exclusives(FF7R,FFXIV, FFXVI upcoming).
Capcom could be, based on EVO being owned by Sony and their exclusivity with Street Fighter V.
There are a few other devs they could have, such as Kojima Productions, Arc System Works, Ember Labs, etc.
But if Sony does go for a big gun, it's most likely Square for me.
But if they do, it'll trigger a consolidation war that will not end well for gamers in the end, I fear.
But one might argue Microsoft already fired those shots.
I remember people feared and postulated 20 years ago,when Microsoft first entered the console gaming sector, that they could just "buy" their way to success if they wanted.
They didn't for a long time, but PlayStation has been market leader for so many generations(save for PS3 I think),I guess they finally decided to pull out the checkbook as many folks figured.
Konami , I always assumed it was already a Sony studio...
Both Karak and Skullzi teased ActiBliz. Zenimax was also teased by someone(I used to mention his name here but I forgot).I think both Activision and Bungie buys should show us nobody knows anything
They might as well. Their games don’t sell well on XBOX anyway, so they won’t be losing much
Here's some basic reading on the subject.
The Antitrust Laws
Congress passed the first antitrust law, the Sherman Act, in 1890 as a "comprehensive charter of economic liberty aimed at preserving free and unfettered competition as the rule of trade." In 1914,www.ftc.gov
It's to try to ensure competition continues and one company doesn't control an entire market.
For instance if I owned Kellogs they would prevent me from buying General Mills. Or they would block a buyout between Coke and Pepsi.
MS wouldn’t even own the market after this purchase. They’ll be #3 after Tencent and Sony and only have 12% of the market. There are no mental gymnastics that can make that a monopoly.But if one company makes enough money, haven't they earned the right to own the market?
That's capitalism, isn't it?
I'm hoping for Arc System Works, Capcom, and Bandai.
It's farfetched, but a fighting game by Arc with Capcom and Bandai IPs would be amazing.
I bet COD stays multiplat in order for this shit to pass
It will go through. Dont worry homie.Would like to get more details but the article is behind a paywall.
This seems a bit suspect right now.
Is the suggestion that buying out a company of that magnitude should be illegal because it stifles competition?
If so, would this be setting some precedent of socialism in private markets?
Sony was forced by the Acti-Blizz announcement to scrape together 3.6 billion to buy a company that only has one good IP. They couldn't even afford to get that IP with the deal. Poor little Sony out here just trying to make a name for themselves and survive.The Bungie acquisition helps their case.
In theory it should work that way, but in reality it doesn't.But if one company makes enough money, haven't they earned the right to own the market?
That's capitalism, isn't it?
I think this was isn't really going to surprise anybody to be honest but Microsoft would have known that anyway, hence them announcing the acquisition as "Microsoft to acquire Activision Blizzard to bring the joy and community of gaming to everyone, across every device".
It may well strange for some but I honestly think that "everything on everything" is where well be a decade or two from now, consoles are expensive and incerdibly riscky to make so removing from, removing disc production and removing ownership from people is just teh obvious progression. I don't like it but in terms of new games, rental and subscription services are inevitability even if people don't like it. It will still be far more profitable for the companies doing it that way and so many of the younger gamer are already happy in teh early stages of what Satya Nadella calls the Metaverse.
Completely different situation.In theory it should work that way, but in reality it doesn't.
MS took a big beat down in the 90s over it and was forced to break the company up and share its technology with other companies, even though they had done all the R&D and creation of most of the technology.
Microsoft would be much bigger company with much less competition had this not happened.
Microsoft Antitrust Case
The Microsoft antitrust case came to be one of the high-profile cases a few decades ago. In the 1990s. U.S. federal regulators sued Microsoftcorporatefinanceinstitute.com
That's interesting. I didn't knew they teased that outside of saying it'd make sense.Both Karak and Skullzi teased ActiBliz. Zenimax was also teased by someone(I used to mention his name here but I forgot).
Been done before and it rarely ever turns out well for anyone.But if one company makes enough money, haven't they earned the right to own the market?
That's capitalism, isn't it?
Btw, not saying I endorse monopolies, just curious about the moral context behind free markets, etc.
MS can use xbox one entire gen vs Ps4 gen.Can't see this being blocked, we always knew it was going to be reviewed, but it's going to be hard to prove a monopoly or unfair advantage when companies like Sony, Nintendo, Tencent and Embracer exist.
they hyping it like if is bigger acquisiitij than ms/Activision.,..........Capcom is absolutely notSony getting Capcom is my best bet.
I wish they would go after Konami's ips but I don't think that's happening.
The hints...
Microsoft making a monster hunter killer, Capcom closing the arcade business, Sony having bought Evo is also a hint that they want to invest in the FGC, I am confident that that's the acquisition, also Capcom while a Japanese company it has great western appeal.
darrylgorn was asking about antitrust and if a company makes enough money don't they have a right to own the market under capitalism.Completely different situation.
Microsoft was using provable anti competitive measures. They were making it almost impossible for other browsers to compete on the Windows platform (leveraging their dominant market position) because Internet Explorer was tightly integrated at the core. Therefore IE held a 95% grip on the browser market because users had very little choice in the matter.
- the xbox has been in 3rd place the last 2 generations getting it's ass kicked
- tens of thousands of other first person shooters exist
- warzone is barely the most popular battle royale with dozens of alternatives
1) the windows OS dominance ultimately turned out to be ok. 2) it was the leveraging of that dominance on the market that got them into trouble. People need to stop citing this case. Like comparing Apples and Brocolli
they staying indipendent i don't see them leaving destiny soonIf they made Destiny (new IP during the PS3\360 days), they can make another one.
I'm assuming they've learned one or two things over the last 10 years when it comes to making MP games, GaaS game, and MTX stuff that Sony would love to put in some of their other games that they are making for the PS5.
yes, sounds, but even then thats not evidence and they'd have no reason to hide that considering how transparent they are right now
You can, that doesn't mean thats what this is.
None of this would even make any logical sense. Really think about it.
Sony allows them to remain independent.
Sony allows them to self publish.
Strangely leaves out that they are allowing them to keep the IP
Oh yea for 3 billion, a independent team, will self publish an IP you have no rights to....sir you need to even question why any of that would be worth 3 billion.
200 million? Sure we've seen some wild marketing deals, 400 million? hey they are allowing them to have lots of freedom sure. Those deals make more sense as both parties are getting something, but I don't buy Sony spends 3 billion without that IP. Thats is just massively unlikely and even odd that no one from Sony or Bungie would state that, yet tell us of future Destiny releases, future new IP releases, telling us they will self publish and they will be independent. I means they are indeed telling us the meat and potatoes of that deal, but having them keep the IP isn't one of it.
It would just be listed with the other things Sony is allowing, this sounds MORE likely that Sony buying the team and the IP is what the fuck they just paid 3 billion for and being independent and self publishing was likely a condition of the sale of that IP. Sony is already known for giving their teams freedom, they are already known for allowing teams to move on and I don't think they wish to make Destiny something other then what Bungie wants it to be, so its not as if Sony wants to turn that IP into something else, as if that was true why even agree to be sold to Sony? Make a marketing deal as they did in the past or some other exclusivity deal, but you don't give THIS MUCH away for 3 billion.
Well, you already listed a few potential ones. I think CoD will keep coming to PS even after the contract period is done.Which ones? COD games are contracted for a while still, likely till end of 2023. Microsoft may be charitable with Diablo 4 and Overwatch 2, but what else is there? Sony has the Ghostwire Tokyo deal.. That new Blizzard survival IP definitely ain't heading to Playstation, especially since it hasn't been officially confirmed for platforms.
I’ve had all consoles since the PS2 days, in general I don’t care, but if Sony start to pull games from PC into some 3 year delay crap then I’m getting crankyFrom either side, I'm not a fan of this.
The quicker it passes regulation, the sooner it will close. They only offered that June '23 timeline in case it got held up in the courts.Would this mean, the deal will process faster? Considering the FCC are handling the case now.
For my tastes, Capcom would easily be the most attractive option. RE and MH are bigger than ever, DMC5 did well, SFVI could do well. I think it’s a bit of a bargain for only a few billion.
I’ve had all consoles since the PS2 days, in general I don’t care, but if Sony start to pull games from PC into some 3 year delay crap then I’m getting cranky
Sony while the FTC is looking at Microsoft and Activision:Now its your time Sony
It takes Two was published by EA.
If EA goes to Sony or Microsoft, we are all fucked.
some of them never built a game are just helping studios
Sony will be at a solid 20 studios by the end of spring